User talk:Jason47a

Welcome!

Hello, Jason47a, andwelcometo Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions.I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian!Pleasesignyour messages ondiscussion pagesusing fourtildes(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions,ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place{{helpme}}before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --El on ka 02:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Website

Hi Jason, glad to have you aboard! We'd love to have you joinWikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas,where we try to centralize some of the work on the soap articles of Wikipedia. Feel free to add your name to the participants list there. Also, you might want to mention your site on your userpage. What's the URL, I'd love to take a look? --El on ka 02:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link! I can tell you put a lot of work into it, and I look forward to reading it.:)

I see you're posting a couple messages to people who you feel have been less than kind in their comments about your site. Could you please point me to where these comments are? I am an administrator, and if there's something around that violates our policies oncivility,I can look into getting the information removed. But I have to see it first to make a determination. So, any hints?:) --El on ka 03:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll review the comments. Also, just generally speaking, sometimes when Wikipedia editors say a website is "unreliable", it's sort of a shorthand. It doesn't necessarily mean that the site is wrong, it just means that it may not pass what we call ourreliable sourcestandard. Sometimes there's superb information out there on fansites and message boards, but we're not allowed to use it because it came from a fan rather than an official source. I'm sure you know how that goes! Sometimes you hear really interesting information, but you're not sure whether to trust it or not. So on Wikipedia, our rules are that we have to stick with "trusted" sources. Your site looks like a great resource, but unfortunately we can't use it, if that makes sense? --El on ka 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I agree that some of the comments were inappropriate, and for what it's worth, I apologize. Those comments were not in accordance with the Wikipedia policy onno personal attacks,and I have deleted them from the page. If there are any other problems I should take a look at, please don't hesitate to get in touch. --El on ka 05:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapup

If you have any other comments that are directly relevant to Wikipedia articles, I encourage you to participate in the project, as we can definitely use all the help we can get. I think you would be a good editor to have onboard with theSoap Operas WikiProject,if you would like to join. You are not intimidated by wiki syntax, and your writing ability is very good. --El on ka 18:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wrapping things up

Hi Elonka. Just try to make sure no negative comments are directed towards me personally. You can say what you want about my site, but I don't think personal attacks are welcome, as you have stated previously. I'm busy enough with my own site, so I will have to refrain from joining in on the SoapOperas WikiProject. Thanks for the complement about my writing ability. It's much appreciated. All the best on your future endeavors. JasonJason47a(talk)19:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will keep an eye out, and if you notice anything else which you feel is a personal attack, please don't hesitate to bring it to my attention. --El on ka 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did atTalk:List of Days of our Lives cast members,is considered as abad practice,even if you meant well. Take a look at thewelcome pageto learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. As for your concern about other information being used from your site (and I agree, Wikipedia can be terribly inconsistent sometimes), if you would like, simply add [<the url>] next to the relevant information. Ideally this should be areliable source,but in the absence of any other source, a fansite is sometimes acceptable for non-contentious information. You can also add the {{fact}} tag next to anything which you feel should have a source, but doesn't yet. This will tag it as needing a citation.Thank you.El on ka 19:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Days

Wikipedia policy (WP:V) is very clear that unsourced information can be removed on the spot, by any editor. Feel free to delete it from the Wikipedia article. You may also wish to add{{fact}}tags to request citations. Either option is acceptable. Be cautious about edit-warring about it (seeWP:3RR), but a one-time deletion is usually fine. --El on ka 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really relevant whether the information was taken from your website or not. The key is whether someone is adding unsourced information to Wikipedia. If you remove it, then they add it back without sources, that is them being disruptive. If they do it repeatedly, they may be blocked. --El on ka 22:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't copyright the facts in the article, even if you developed the resource that makes accessing them possible. Credit isn't required - the citation isn't credit, its a reference. If your original work (i.e. your text, in this case) is copied directly, then it should be removed whether a citation is provided or not. On the other hand, the informationcanbe removed as unsourced by anyone who disputes its factual basis. Copyright issues wouldn't enter into that action.Avruch ^T 22:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dates were copied from my website (they have been on there since 2005...the page here wasn't created until 2007). I've removed my material from the page, since it constitutes "original research", which I've been told is not allowed on here. Thanks, JasonJason47a(talk)22:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove them, but if someone cites them to a reliable source they can be added back whether you are the original source of the research or not. Dates can't be "your material" and facts you've made available don't belong to you - neither is your permission required to post them. If you are interested in protecting your copyrights to your material, you might visit thecopyrightarticle and thefair use doctrinearticle as well, among others. You'll find there that the fact that your work is pre-existing does not necessarily mean that future similar work is a copy or derivative.Avruch ^T 22:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that sounds good. From Elonka's comment above: "The key is whethersomeone is adding unsourced informationto Wikipedia.If you remove it, then they add it back without sources, that is them being disruptive.If they do it repeatedly, they may be blocked. "It seems anyone re-adding the information that I remove without backing it up could be blocked. And from Avruch's comment above:" You can remove them,but if someone cites them to a reliable source they can be added backwhether you are the original source of the research or not. "So until someone cites a reliable source (and to my knowledge the only reliable sources would be either videotapes of the episodes or the scripts themselves), that information can not be added back to the page again. Thanks, JasonJason47a(talk)23:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in order to avoid issues with verifiable facts, perhaps you should consider sourcing anything you put on theList of Days of our Livescast member page. Because, as you well know, anyone is well within their rights to removed unsourced information. Printed sources do count, and you can use them. I too, saw the article that Stephen Nichols and Mary Beth Evans left Days of Our Lives, so I will back you up with it. But we must source if we want our contributions to stay. Hope this helps:) Thanks for all your help in keeping the page up! Have a great weekend.Rm994(talk)18:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, when I removed them from the current cast list this time, I added the "Breaking News" link of SOD's website which has the paragraph about it being Mary Beth & Stephen's last day. Also, coming up, Dylan Patton is on contract as Will. The 2/23 credits do not list him yet, but hopefully they will list him on Friday 2/27, so he can be added to the contract list.Jason47a(talk)05:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nbc.com had a blip about him coming to Days, so I sourced it. Unable to find verifiable sources regarding Thaao Penghlis and Rachel Melvin, so I had to remove them. Keep up the great work!Rm994(talk)16:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Email received, thank you. And for what it's worth, I'm sorry that you have to deal with this. No one should have to put up with this kind of abuse. Her block has also been extended to 48 hours. If you get any other emails of this type, please let us know. --El on ka 00:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Days producer article

Oh, I simply copied and pasted that information into a new article to make the mainDaysarticle slimmer for a GA shot last year. I didn't even realize I had created that article until now. I simply moved the information, I didn't add anything of my own. If there is stuff that isn't compliant, by all means, please remove it.Mike H.Fierce!01:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding Mike. Since Mike created that "Days" head writer page and could not supply the source for the exact writing tenure dates, I guess they can not be added back to that page. I never knew Wikipedia had such high standards, but now that I see they do, I can understand why my website is considered "unreliable." I understand it's just a term that is used on Wikipedia for any fan sites and/or original research, and that it's not a slight towards myself, my research, or my knowledge about "Days." When I first joined Wikipedia last week, I was surprised to see "unrealible" and my website in the same sentence, but now I can see why that fits for Wikipedia's standards. No harm done for me. Thanks to everyone for helping explain things. I'm glad we were finally able to work things out.Jason47a(talk)02:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mike created that "Days" head writer page and could not supply the source for the exact writing tenure dates, I guess they can not be added back to that page.

I just moved an article to a new article. This implies that I wrote it originally and made up dates. I simply moved information to a new article. Please understand that.Mike H.Fierce!22:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing that vandalism on the Days cast page. I sent that user a message about constructive edits. Britney Spears? HA! You and I were fixing it at the same time:)Rm994(talk)20:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I check in on those pages a few times a week just to see that things are in order. I just got the word on Higley & the new staff writers, so after I added the info to my website, then I updated the writing pages here on Wikipedia, and noticed the cast page vandalism. Just was wondering how to fix it, and finally figured out how to put just Joe Penny back in, since the vandal had erased the entire "comings & goings" section.:)Jason47a(talk)20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help with theList of Days of our Lives cast memberspage. I try to get vandalism reverted as quickly as I can, but as you can see from the edit summary, it happens so often that I miss them! Some IP, starting with 74.216... relentlessly adds misinformation, deletes cast members, etc, and I can't keep up with it. They won't semi-protect the page, so it's up to us to keep up. Thanks again!Rm994(talk)16:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I have requested that the page be semi-protected, with only established users being able to edit it. I don't know if it will do any good, but it is worth a shot. Have a great weekend.Rm994(talk)23:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Morgan Sheppard

Hello again, Do you have any information about William Morgan Sheppard being in the cast of Days of Our Lives? He played Charles (the man who shot Greta at the coronation) from 2000-2001. Imdb.com lists him as only appearing in 3 episodes, but I know he was in many more than that. When I added him to the castlist, someone told me he was only a guest star, and the list is not for guest stars (Although Shirley Jones' most recent stint was WAY shorter than W. Morgan Sheppard's and she is on the list). Any advice?Rm994(talk)20:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I updated the entire former cast list of "Days" and included all of the major roles from 1965-1985, and anyone who has appeared in at least 50 episodes since 1986 (Shirley Jones was already on the Wikipedia list, so I did not remove her, although I did find an actor who played "Orderly # 2" that I never heard of, so I did remove him). I thought the 50+ episode was a good cut-off point. Mr. Sheppard was only on 18 episodes of "Days", so that is well below the 50 episode cut-off. But if you want to add him, I don't have a problem with it. It's just that then there'd be about 100 or so other guest stars who were on more than him (between 20-49 episodes) and who would not yet be in the cast list. I keep track of all the episode appearances at my website,http://www.jason47.comso if you ever have a question about how many episodes someone has appeared in, you can check there. The overall rankings were last updated in December 2008 and now include every episode appearance from 1983-2008.Jason47a(talk)20:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok then. Thanks for clearing that up:)Rm994(talk)20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galen Gering

Your input is requested at the talk page ofList of Days of our Lives cast members.Rm994(talk)21:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rm994. Sorry for the delay in replying. I didn't log in recently to notice that there was a message waiting for me. I commented on the Rafe situation. I don't think there is any problem listing both Rafe's since they are two different characters!Jason47a(talk)04:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Peterson Woods DiMera

Your input is requested at the talk page ofList of Days of our Lives cast members.Rm994(talk)15:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Layton Kiriakis Jonas

Your input is requested at the talk page ofList of Days of our Lives cast members.Rm994(talk)19:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Von Amberg

Your input is requested at the talk page ofList of Days of our Lives cast members.Rm994(talk)14:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Brady/John Black

Your input is requested at the talk page ofHope BradyorJohn Black (Days of our Lives).Rm994(talk)17:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DAYS Cast List

You're completely missing the point Jason. You edits violate Wiki policy. We cannot use show credits as sourcing for removal/change in content, and simply stating something was mentioned in a magazine is also not valid enough. You need to properlycite your information/source.Involving yourself into a potentialedit-waris not the answer.livelikemusic^{my talk page!}06:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I won't be edit-warring with you, I'm busy enough with my own "Days" website. Please direct me to the Wiki page where it says credits can't be used as a source. Thanks!Jason47a(talk)06:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can check outthe website's verifiability policiesto explain it more in-depth.livelikemusic^{my talk page!}15:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out that page and found nothing about not using credits of a TV show. In fact I found this page, which states you can use TV episode info:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordingsSo, until you point me to the correct page that says you can't use TV credits as a source, please do not revert my edits. Thanks!Jason47a(talk)16:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is stated about the credits. It says what is typically used.You should also ask your good buddy RM, because he's always stated no TV credits should be used, along with other editors, since TV credits can always be false and are not considered a third-party source.livelikemusic^{my talk page!}16:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't specifically use the term "credits", but I was referring to this portion of the pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordings:

name of the director; name of the producer; names of major performers

So, that's what I meant by using credits, which is the list of the directors, producers and performers of the TV show. One of your go-to sources, Soap Opera Digest, has had several errors and things proven to be false in the past year, so not every source is perfect, whether it's a magazine or a TV show crawl list. So, I've provided you with a Wiki page that states my reasoning for using the end credits. As asked previously, please provide me with a Wiki page that states I can't use the TV credits as a source. Thanks!Jason47a(talk)16:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should involve other editors into this discussion beyond just you and I. Because other editors, such asRm994have also stated the same as I. And also, no need to always leave a talkback. I am constantly checking where I've discussed with others.livelikemusic^{my talk page!}17:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just following your rule on your page, which says to leave that "talk back" thingy. But if you'd rather I not do that, that's fine. I see no reason to involve other editors. I've found the pages on Wiki that state TV credits can be used. You've pointed me to no Wiki pages that states TV credits can't be used. If any other editors were to be involved, I'd just point them to those same pages on Wiki, so we'd just be going around in circles. So, for me, this issue is resolved.Jason47a(talk)17:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well Idowant other editors involved, as it's been previous stated to me specifically by that editor and I was previously sent to that page. So I want others involved in such a discussion. No need to appear to be hostile or offensive by this. Consensus should be reached between more than two parties. And yes, you were following talk page rules but to add excessive talkbacks for the same discussion is unnecessary. That's all.livelikemusic^{my talk page!}17:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I can't "enter your mind" and know what's "previously been stated to you specifically", so that's of no use to me. I just am going by the Wiki rules, which state TV credits (the list of directors/producers/cast) can be used as a source, as per this page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordingsIf you can get Wiki to remove that portion of the source page, then I guess credits can no longer be used as a source. Until then though, Wiki states credits can be used. I don't see why a consensus is needed, since Wiki seems to have already come to a consensus and includes TV credits as part of their source material. No worries, I didn't consider you hostile or offensive, I just didn't see you provide any proof yet that TV credits can't be used. since the Wiki page I provided you with specifically does say they can be used.Jason47a(talk)18:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way to resolve this dispute is to offer up the changes for consensus. It has been my understanding that credits can't be used because they aren't verifiable, and can change from day to day, but if information has been found that says they can, all we can do is to discuss any controversial changes on the talk page. That's how articles are done here. In this case, the majority rules. If, however, credits are used as sources, they must be properly cited, as unsourced material can be removed. It's a real gray area, so the best way to do it is to propose a consensus. Hope this helps:)Rm994(talk)04:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I don't know how to propose a consensus, so if anyone else would like to, please do. From reading this page of Wiki though,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordingsit says credits can be used. As per Livelikemusic, he said you told him that credits could not be used, and was stating that to me as one of the reasons I couldn't use credits when I did updates last evening. I simply found the correct page on Wiki which states that credits can be used. Maybe the rule changed since you first told him that credits couldn't be used, who knows? Since the rule is already on that page though, I don't see why a consensus is needed. Hasn't Wiki already decided on that issue based on that page? In any event, please proceed with how you think best. I do ask that attention be brought to this page of Wiki though, when asking for the consensus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordingsThanks!Jason47a(talk)06:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's not a problem at all, but the issue is the fact that you can't link directly to the credits. That's why we have discussions. One day the credits may say one thing, and the next something else, who's to say who saw what on which day? It gets mighty cumbersome that way. If controversial material is to be added/removed and there is a disagreement, a consensus must be reached. Even if you "source" the credits. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which means that in order to resolve disputes, we must all try to agree on a course of action. If your sourced material is removed, and a consensus can not be reached, you can also seek wikipedia dispute resolution. Unfortunately, there is a lot of room for interpretation in the rules. For example, some people swear by youtube and use it as a source. For some content, that's fine. For Days of our Lives, that's a no no because it's illegal to upload scenes from Days. It's just like verifiability...some swear by soapcentral.com, others by soapoperadigest. How do we know what actually constitutes reliable? That's why we have to put up discussions. If it can't be settled, there are dispute resolution processes that can be started. Please let me know if I can help in any way!Rm994(talk)07:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this page of Wiki says you don't need to directly link to credits, just that the credits have to exist on video (even offline):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources It states this: Definition of published The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online.However,audio,video,and multimediamaterials that have been recorded then broadcast,distributed, or archived by a reputable partymay also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources.Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist.It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. To me, that means you just have to cite the credits of an episode. It doesn't matter if it's not available online. The video exists, and is therefore archived, and as such, you only have to note the time (into the program) that the credits are listed. If anything, at least the discussions today are educating me somewhat on some of the Wiki rules, so that's a good thing!Jason47a(talk)07:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely:) Can't hurt to brush up on them! I've been here for 6 years and still only know a tiny fraction of all the rules.Rm994(talk)16:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, from those two links,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordingsandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources,a consensus has already been reached by Wiki in regards to the use of TV credits. My confusion is that you are saying a consensus is "needed to be reached", while I am saying that a consensus (based on those two links) has already been reached. So, having read those two links, what are your thoughts on the matter? Also, Livelikemusic, you were the one who asked for a discussion on this matter, but have yet to say anything since asking for this discussion, so I'd like to hear your thoughts about things after having read those two links. Thanks!Jason47a(talk)17:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus doesn't need to be reached about using TV credits as sources. Sorry if that's unclear. Consensus needs to be reached if someone disputes an edit made to an article...it's the reason I asked for your opinion about Princess Gina, Rafe 2, etc...that's when a consensus needs to be reached. If you make a controversial edit, and people challenge it, they are well within their right to do so, even if you can use the credits as sources. If everyone on the page ultimately decides the info should not be added, then whoever adds it back will be going against consensus. It's like in the case of Rafe 2...several sites claim he's Arnold Finnegar or whoever, but the consensus on the page says list him as Rafe 2. It doesn't matter if someone sources all these things to say he's Arnold, consensus was reached, and that is how disagreements are handled. Now personally, if something is sourced properly, I will not challenge such material. But I can't speak for other editors. What you need to do is go to the talk page of whatever article you're editing, and ask the community to decide. You will find that if material is properly sourced/verifiable, editors will not challenge it. I know I won't. If a consensus cannot be reached, an administrator maybe contacted for dispute resolution. Hope this helps:)Rm994(talk)21:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. What you are referring to was about adding "dual roles" to the cast list...roles which are not listed in the credits. So I can see why a consensus on that particular subject (whether or not dual roles which are not credited in the credits can be added to a page). I can see why a consensus would be needed in that respect for the "dual roles." As for this issue, however, I see we are back to square one then. I found and directed both you and Livelikemusic to the pages that said TV credits can be used as a source. Livelikemusic said he'd like a discussion between more than two editors and invited you here, but since then he has not commented once (so it basically just went from a 2-editor discussion between him and I, to a 2-editor discussion between you and me). Thanks for your input though. I'll await word from him with his thoughts on the matter.Jason47a(talk)23:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add anything Jason because I have not been online. I do have a life outside of the Wikipedia community. Also please consider timezones when it comes to editors being online. I think if the credits can be linked offline in a non-YouTube and completely legal way, they should be able to be used. But to just go off what airs on "X" episode shouldn't be qualified because even networks can get credits wrong, I've seen it many-a-time happen with network credits. While I do believe Jason has a point, nothing has been commented yet on the status of let's say Bryan Dattilo's status within the series. As far as third-party sources are confirmed, he's still on a contract status. Now, whether it's true, who knows. I just think we can't do directly off of what airs on day-to-day credits. Especially since I've seen cast members credited on a series that they've been off of for months.livelikemusic^{my talk page!}23:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me, Livelikemusic. Nice to hear your comments on the matter. As for Bryan Dattilo's absence from the contract credits, I'm not going off of one random "X" episode. I check the credits each day they are aired. He has not been listed in the credits for the past month (he was removed July 10), so it wasn't just a one-time thing. In fact, that's why I waited a month to make the change here. I didn't want it to be just a "one-time error" thing. So I waited over a month after Drake and Bryan were removed from the credits. With Bryan not being listed in the credits for Episodes # 12123 (7/10/13), 12125 (7/12/13), 12127 (7/16/13), 12129 (7/18/13), 12131 (7/22/13), 12133 (7/24/13), 12135 (7/26/13), 12137 (7/30/13), 12139 (8/1/13), 12141 (8/5/13), 12143 (8/7/13) and 12145 (8/9/13), that shows a pattern of him no longer being on contract (and not it being a one or two-time error). In fact, this is the exact opposite of what you had suggested doing last year, when you were saying that Joseph Mascolo should be removed from the current cast list, even though his name still remained in the credits; which contradicted (and ultimately proved false) Soap Opera Digest's saying that he had left the series for good. And, ironically, Rm994 responded that since Mascolo was still in the credits, he should be kept on the current cast list, since that meant he was still on contract with show. So, this sort of issue came up exactly one year ago (July 2012). Here is the exchange about the cast credits:

He's off the show for storyline purposes. According to Soap Opera Digest he and Renee Jones are off the show officially. Also, please remember to sign your posts. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 18:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC) He is still listed on the credits. He's only gone temporarily. Having him listed on the credits means he is technically still on contract with the show. Rm994 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That was the end of the discussion between you two then, and Mascolo (due to his listing in the credits), remained on the Wiki current cast list. So there's another thing (along with the above links I've provided), which points to the fact that the credits aired on the show have dictated what happens to someone's name on the Wiki cast list (in this case, directly and specifically dealing with the Days of Our Lives Wiki cast list). If the credits were good enough for both of you to keep Mascolo on the Wiki cast page last year, why is it not good enough now to remove Dattilo? That's an exact contradiction to what was decided on July 31, 2012! Interested in both of your thoughts on the matter. Thanks!Jason47a(talk)00:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with Datillo being listed on recurring. If the show can be used as source, and his name has been removed all of those days, then by all means...move him. But, I do see Likelivemusic's point...if you recall the day that John Black last aired, his name was not listed in the credits, contract or guest...so how are the credits really reliable? Mistakes are made and that's the point aboutWP:V.But, like you said, a one time thing is acceptable, but if it's ongoing, it's probably correct. Fine with me if it's changed...but at this point if we are going to talk about what's going to be added on the page, then this discussion should be moved to the talk page ofList of Days of our Lives cast members.Rm994(talk)02:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think, if anything, it's a discussion that should move to the project webpage for soaps. Other editors of a broader range should put their input in, no? And to note on the Mascolo thing, I kept him in because I had gotten an issue of SOD that confirmed he was returning and still within the series. That's why I didn't pursue it further.livelikemusic^{my talk page!}02:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your note about Joe Mascolo in SOD, as we know now, that magazine makes mistakes too, so really, in the end, nobody is perfect, neither the end credits, nor Soap Opera Digest! As Rm994 pointed out, the "Days" editors have forgotten to list Drake and Bryan at all in the credits since they went on recurring, and Soap Opera Digest has said Drake was returning to the show to tape episodes in June 2013, when he in fact never did. So, neither of those sources is 100% correct all of the time. But since SOD is used as a source (even though the magazine is known to have errors), then the credits (as per the links above) should be able to be used too, even though they have known errors. Both sources have errors, but it doesn't make them wrong in the long-run of things. As I said earlier, I'm not good with how to post things on Wiki, so could either Rm994 or Livelikemusic post a message on one of those boards mentioned above (either the Days page or the Soap Project page) and I don't know how to do it, but can you either copy/paste this whole section of messages to that page, or somehow "link" directly to this section of my talk page, since then the other editors can see what's been discussed already? Please also let me know when it's been posted, so I can participate in the discussion on that board. Thanks!Jason47a(talk)04:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedList of Days of our Lives cast members,you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCameron Davis(check to confirm|fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ• Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions.Thanks,DPL bot(talk)11:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion needed

Your opinion is needed at the talk page ofList of Days of our Lives cast members.Rm994(talk)22:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for contacting me. I just stated my opinion on the Days talk page.Jason47a(talk)00:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Donovan

I would love your input as to the naming of former portrayers of this character besides just Jenna Lilley. Please see theTheresa Donovantalk page if you have a minute. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979(talk)23:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring

Your input is requested at the talk page ofList of Days of our Lives cast members.Rm994(talk)18:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election.TheArbitration Committeeis the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration process.It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to imposesite bans,topic bans,editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policydescribes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statementsand submit your choices onthe voting page.For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery(talk)13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jason47a. Voting in the2017 Arbitration Committee electionsis now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committeeis the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process.It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans,editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policydescribes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please reviewthe candidatesand submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery(talk)18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jason47a. Voting in the2018 Arbitration Committee electionsis now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committeeis the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process.It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans,editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policydescribes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidatesand submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery(talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]